MegaRanter

Now, he is DEAD and it is comforting that the man who shot him DEAD with a GUN is facing the justice system. Guilty or Not Guilty is acceptable. Walking home without consequences ... not acceptable.

chuckd, on 2012-04-15 19:26:21, said:

No, I believe I got your point very  clearly. As you say, homicides occur in Chicago quite often. Those involved are murder suspects. When they are caught they are treated as such. In this case Mr. Zimmerman was not treated as such. Why is a fuss made? Precisely because he was not treated as such and the death was treated, seemingly by default, as justifiable homicide.

I too dislike immensely the political capital that partisans seek to make from this case. It is disgusting and revolting. That's beside the point. It's this particular case that's important. How, when and why the young man died. How, when and why Mr. Zimmerman shot him dead, and what actions on the dead boy's part may or may not have led to it and what laws in Florida might justify the killing.

Ulysses G., on 2012-04-15 06:54:17, said:

And it's also been suggested that the videos of Zimmerman being taken to the police station don't show any bleeding, cuts etc. I think they can be googled and viewed quite easily. And other witnesses said said it was the bigger man on top with the smaller guy face down on the ground.
You'd think there's enough doubt and contradiction there to at least warrant a thorough investigation. I hope all the available evidence can be reviewed and the truth come out.

I'm not American and it's just beyond my comprehension that police can accept the man's word and let him go. Is this really how the law works stateside? It's also baffling to me how ordinary people, who I can often relate to in their posts on here about Thailand, find this kind of situation to be possibly acceptable. It really is a funny old world.

Colin Yai, on 2012-04-15 05:26:24, said:

Are you seriously saying that someone can be killed without some sort of investigation? Without the person who did the killing at least being detained and questioned about the circumstances in which they killed? Or is it only black boys named Trayvon who don't need their death investigated?

geriatrickid, on 2012-04-14 23:01:56, said:

You're right. Frankly, I hate Zimmerman just based on not even taking a direct order to back off. He wasn't under attack, he was stalking Martin. We know those facts. He didn't back off. He was told to by police. There is no way to assert he doesn't have some responsibility for the death.

Also, it reeks that he wasn't arrested the night of the killing, just based on the facts the police did know. It wasn't like it was a home invasion!

I don't know or care if he is racist. I do know a boy is dead and Zimmerman murdered him.

Bottom line is the police took his call and told him to back off. Now a boy is dead. Someone must pay! Yes it has become a racially charged case, but the reality is if it was a white boy this never would have happened and all Americans know that. And if it DID happen, the idea that the killer wouldn't have been arrested on the spot is beyond ridiculous.

Are you guys trying to wind me up?   You'll need to do better than that. I said clearly, A white person in Africa holding a passport from a African country may accurately refer to him self as a citizen of that country. ie Kenyan, Zimbabwaean, ect. This is his nationality, not his ethnicity. There is no American Ethnicity, All people who come here and become citizens have the right to call themselves American. And what is a real African to me, in very simple terms, someone who's ethnicity and culture is that of one of the many indigenous peoples of Africa.

Oh and I'm not a Victim, my people surly have been Victimized, but I refuse to be a victim. I believe  that's often a personal choice one that can be made if you have the strength, intestinal fortitude, and good fortune to be able to rise up inspite of the difficulties that beset you.   And so far I have managed to do just that.

Here we go again, the same old arguments from both sides. the fact is Abhisit is a useless milksop and Thaksin is a corrupt egomaniac. Take your choice, ignore the fact that it is out of your hands, you don't even get to vote, you are just a noisy spectator. The Thais have their own way of doing things, it's not democratic, never has been. The poor country folk may be uneducated but they are not stupid, they understand corruption, they are part of it, they see through Abhisit's pretty face and nice speeches, just as they understand Thaksin's ego and corruption. This is not Europe or America or Australia, this is Asia where most countries are ruled by strong egomaniacs, from China to Cambodia. If I had to choose between a useless milksop and a corrupt egomaniac, I would chose the corrupt maniac every time, and it would seem that most Thais feel the same.

GentlemanJim, on 2012-04-11 10:17:06, said:

Your self rightious racist indignation would have been offensive 20-30yrs ago, but today it's just laughable, the last of a dying breed, clinging to delusions of white racial superiority and their birthright in Africa. By your skewed logic I could come in your house kick you and your family into the basement and turn the rest of the house into a hotel because I don't think your making the floor space as "prosperous" as it could be. Meanwhile I'll have you chumps clean the toilets and serve the food while I "educate" your children by telling them how worthless they are and how by my blood I'm superior, while lieing to them about their rich cultural heritage under their feet and make it a crime for anyone to speak of it.

GTFO of here with that crap, that kind of mentality is a Joke, and even with the current state of affairs in Zimbabwe, the last laugh iwill be on people who share your additudte.

And I still stand behind Mughabe's decision to kick out the European Occupiers (And on a side note; The Native Americans should have too, they tried and failed, now their all dead. so at least Mugabe did that much for his people ). Now, he went about it wrong. This is what I believe he should have done.

BEFORE kicking them out he should have hired agricultural consultants to survey the land and determine the kind of equipment, materials, and manpower needed to keep the farms running at optimal levels. Then with their aid, create a time share proposal where in the govt would allow foreign agricultural ministries, their corporate representatives, or private companies to bid on the use of the farm land for the next 20-30 years. make 3 or 4 awards dividing up the 70% of Arable land that was in control of the whites.

The Terms of the agreement would allow for the renters to import all their equipment tax free, and export with a set tax (Set by the terms of their award, as one of the deciding factors for the award, how much tax would they be willing to pay for the right to free farm land for X many years)

As well as agricultural OJT and training schools, to educate and employ the Zimbabweans to steadily raise them to self sufficiency.  In the interim Export Co-ops could be founded by locals with training paid for by some of the tax dollars, to set up a trade network for the produce from the remaining arable land. Then when the 20-30 years are up and they divide the land amungst the locals or figure out how best to proceed from there, they won't be totally dependent on foreign companies in their country. Another option would be Profit shareing scheme like what happens in many gulf countries like Kuwait, where the govt provides a ton of benifits like Reverse tax, subsidies, housing, medical and more, with the income generated from the oil.

On that note, some of the consultants could have been Thai, agricultural self sufficiency has always been a big thing here.

Further, Export trade licenses should only be given to Zimbabwean's or companies with majority Zimbabwean ownership. And the Tax should have been closely monitored and administratied.

Now this is just a skeletal foundational concept and would need allot of fleshing out. but had he started down this road BEFORE purging his land of the Thieves his people would not have practically lost the use of  their nations greatest asset and, subsequently, not have suffered as much.

Actually if you read Huntington's Clash of civilizations and then peruse a map of Africa you can see how the European colonialists drew borders depending on the politics between themselves with no regard to the ethnic or religious mix of the areas they put together. This did cause enormous problems such as with Sudan. There is also the small matter of rivalries between English and French speaking areas too. Perhaps this led to many African Countries aligning themselves with communists when they started to take an interest in Africa; This was doubly unfortunate as the free market democracy model is demonstrably better, but in a post colonial world much of Africa backed the wrong horse.

There is a time limit for credibly blaming the past though and rolling sleeves up and making your own future has to happen eventually. First there is the thorny problem of establishing borders between populations which make sense locally, which is why equatorial Africa needs to separate imho from the predominantly Muslim Saharan areas.

MegaRanter, on 2012-04-10 20:33:18, said:

That's not half as bad as his hugs and kisses with Dubya.

Better not take your video down Soi Cowboy.